Re: [PATCH 00/10] rcu: Add missing RCU idle APIs on idle loop

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:31:24PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Frederic, Paul,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Frederic Weisbecker
> <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:23:22PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 07:18:04PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > So this fixes some potential RCU stalls in a bunch of architectures.
> >> >> > When rcu_idle_enter()/rcu_idle_exit() became a requirement, we forgot
> >> >> > to handle the architectures that don't support CONFIG_NO_HZ.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I guess the set should be dispatched into arch maintainer trees.
> >> >>
> >> >> I can take the m68k version, but are you sure you want it this way?
> >> >> Each of them must be in mainline before they can enter stable.
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, I was thinking the right route is for these patches to be
> >> > carried by arch maintainer who then push to Linus and then this goes
> >> > to stable.
> >> >
> >> > Is that ok for you?
> >> >
> >> > Otherwise I can carry the patches myself. In a tree of my own, or
> >> > Paul's or mmotm. As long as I have your ack.
> >>
> >> I applied your patch to the m68k for-3.6/for-linus branch.
> >> I'll ask Linus to pull later in the rc cycle (right now I don't have
> >> anything else
> >> queued for 3.6).
> >> Still, I think it's better to just collect acks and send it to Linus
> >> in one shot,
> >> so it can go into stable in one shot too.
> >
> > Sure I can do that if you prefer.
> 
> What's the conclusion on this one? I saw it entered tip.

I don't see it at tip/master, but perhaps I am looking at the wrong branch.

> I still have it (as the only commit) on my for-3.6 branch, but I don't
> think m68k
> is important enough to be the only architecture to have this fix in 3.6 ;-)

I got only two acks in addition to yours, plus one Tested-by.  So, no,
there does not appear to be a large groundswell of support for pushing
this into 3.6.  If it doesn't go in by some other path, I will be pushing
it into 3.7.

							Thanx, Paul